regardless of your stance, there is more and more chatter regarding ours and chinas relationship. china would have us as an extension of them. take away our quality stuff and they would not be so interested. we are just their farm, or want it to be so.

would they come to our defense in a time of crisis? think not.

our morals, way of thinking are different, although some are trying hard to deny this.

china is a disrupt-er. disruptor noun [ C ] uk ​ /dɪsˈrʌp.tər/ /-tɚ/ a person or thing that prevents something, especially a system, process, or event, from continuing as usual or as expected: endocrine/hormone disruptors.

Chinese-Australian relations appear to be at a crossroads as power shifts.

A week before the Bennelong by-election, Malcolm Turnbull held a press conference in the Sydney suburb of Ryde and spoke about the Government’s new foreign interference laws.

In words that would send shockwaves all the way to Beijing, Mr Turnbull said Australia, like China, was merely “standing up” for its sovereignty as debate over China’s influence on Labor Senator Sam Dastyari raged.

“Modern China was founded in 1949 with this, with these words: ‘Zhongguoren men zhanqilai, the Chinese people have stood up’,” the Prime Minister said.

“Chinese people stand up for their sovereignty and they expect Australian people and particularly Australian leaders to stand up for theirs. That is why we respect each other and that is why they respect me and my Government.”

Except respect is not what Mr Turnbull got from the Chinese. What he got was fury.

The same day Mr Turnbull made the remarks, five Australian journalists — including this reporter — left for a trip to China, sponsored by the Chinese People’s Institute of Foreign Affairs, a Government-run think tank.

The “friendship tour” was aimed at enhancing understanding between Australia and China and sought to present the perspective of the Chinese Government to those reporting on the relationship between the two countries.

Beijing’s perspective was made abundantly clear — at times aggressively — in a series of briefings from Government officials, State-owned companies and university academics. Mr Turnbull’s comments and the Australian Government’s approach was seen as racist. It was the return of a “Cold War mentality” and the suggestion China was interfering in Australia’s domestic affairs was “ridiculous”.

The Prime Minister’s remark about “standing up” was seen as particularly offensive, given he had referred to remarks made by Chairman Mao Zedong, which marked the end of foreign occupation by the Japanese and Western powers.

“Stand up for what? It is not the Chinese Government’s official position to interfere into other countries’ affairs. This is not our policy and we have never done so and we will not do so,” one high-ranking official told the delegation, dismissing concerns raised by Australian security agencies about Chinese political influence and the proliferation of State-sponsored cyber attacks.

In a sternly worded statement, the Chinese Embassy in Canberra responded to the Government’s foreign interference laws by suggesting they were “imbued with bias towards China”.

“We strongly urge the relevant people in Australia to shake off their Cold War mentality and bias against China, immediately stop uttering false remarks that undermine political mutual trust and mutually beneficial co-operation, and take effective measures to offset negative effects so as to avoid disrupting and impacting the development of China-Australia relations,” it said.

At the same time, Australia’s Ambassador to China, Jan Adams, was summoned by Beijing’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs for a dressing down.

Chinese and Australian relations appear to be at a crossroads as power shifts in the Asia-Pacific region.

As the recent Foreign Policy White Paper made plain, Australia believes its alliance with the US will become more important as China’s power and influence grows.

The paper, released by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop last month, warned the “stakes could not be higher” for Australia as the political balance in the region shifted.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s choice of words drew ire in China.

“As China’s power grows, our region is changing in ways without precedent in Australia’s modern history,” the report said. It called for the maintenance of the current international rules-based order, which had allowed regional prosperity to grow, and urged the US not to retreat.

China dismisses suggestions it wants to replace the existing international order with its own set of rules and says it has no interest in interfering in other’s domestic affairs.

However, it does want to give countries an “opportunity” to learn from its extraordinary economic rise, according to one official from the Ministry of Commerce.

“China is the second largest economy in the world, so we want to share our development with other countries, we want to create a more balanced, more just international order,” Zhou Mi, from the Ministry’s Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, says.

Beijing believes the current international system, established in the wake of World War II, is not fair and does not adequately reflect China’s growing economic importance.

In response to the White Paper, Dr Zhou said Beijing had detected a “tougher” tone towards China and recognised concern in Australia that China would fill a vacuum in the region left by a retreating US.

“I can understand this kind of concern because we are different countries, we have difference social systems, we have different ideology, we have different values,” he said.

“With the rapid rise of China, I think not only Australia, all our neighbouring countries have some concern what China will be in the future with such an asymmetric power relationship.”

But he urged Canberra to take a “neutral status” as the power balance shifted and warned that if Australia viewed China negatively, there will be “a lot of negative feedback from China”.

The negative reaction could take the form of some sort of economic punishment.

Senior Government officials in Beijing have discussed the potential of a boycott of Australian goods if Canberra does not change its attitude towards China, in what is seen as the “worst-case scenario”.

China is Australia’s biggest export market and sales of agricultural products such as beef, dairy and wine could be at risk if China wanted to send a warning shot. Beijing believes it could arise because Australia and China are “good economic partners but not friends”.

“China feels very frustrated, even though we have provided economic opportunities for you,” another Government official said. “You criticise China but make money from its markets.”

Australia has been put on notice that a similar backlash — which the Government claims is beyond its control — occurred against the Philippines during a dispute over contested islands in the South China Sea.

At the time, businesses boasted about not selling goods from the Philippines as the Chinese people rejected imports from the country.

It is this type of economic leverage that is causing strategic concern in Australia and among its traditional allies.

China is showing it is prepared to flex its economic muscle in order to achieve its political ambitions and is extending its field of influence beyond the Asia Pacific with the so-called One Belt, One Road initiative.

China’s strength is on bold display during our visit, with the first official stop on the itinerary an exhibition of “China’s outstanding achievements over the past five years” in central Beijing.

Scattered among the hundreds of posters of President Xi Jinping are exhibits of robots, the country’s military and social achievements, and information on the One Belt, One Road plan.

The coalition has so far been wary of the vast infrastructure program, which already has almost $2 trillion in projects under way, but Labor has indicated it wants to be involved.

Some Chinese Government officials believe the Turnbull Government’s position reflects the fact the bilateral relationship between Australia and China is at an all-time low, or at least going through “a very bad time”.

The question being asked is whether the recent hardline stance against China is a fundamental policy shift or whether it is short-term political rhetoric.

Beijing is watching closely Australia’s next move.

Sarah Martin travelled to China as a guest of the Chinese People’s Institute of Foreign Affairs

Strange analysis, Isaac. What we see today in China is a country rising again to its rightful place as one of the great peoples of the world, after a long period of being "disrupted" by external powers, firstly the Europeans, later their Japanese neighbours. What happens in the future probably more depends on internal tensions, China is not some homogenous culture, all marching in step. But only a churl would deny them a moment of pride, for how far they have come, in so short a time.

Strange analysis, Isaac. What we see today in China is a country rising againto its rightful place as one of the great peoples of the world, after a long period of being "disrupted" by external powers, firstly the Europeans, later their Japanese neighbours. What happens in the future probably more depends on internal tensions, China is not some homogenous culture, all marching in step. But only a churl would deny them a moment of pride, for how far they have come, in so short a time.

True, China was the dominant country in the world and wants to regain that position. Of course America thinks it is its god given right to occupy that spot and any country with such aspirations is an evil empireDo you eat Chinese Isaac food that is ,not people

The study of world power has been blighted by Eurocentric
historians who have distorted and ignored the dominant role China played
in the world economy between 1100 and 1800. John Hobson’s[1] brilliant
historical survey of the world economy during this period provides an
abundance of empirical data making the case for China ’s economic and
technological superiority over Western civilization for the better part
of a millennium prior to its conquest and decline in the 19th century.

China ’s re-emergence as a world economic power raises important
questions about what we can learn from its previous rise and fall and
about the external and internal threats confronting this emerging
economic superpower for the immediate future.

It is especially important to emphasize how China , the world
technological power between 1100 and 1800, made the West’s emergence
possible. It was only by borrowing and assimilating Chinese innovations
that the West was able to make the transition to modern capitalist and
imperialist economies.

China: The Rise and Consolidation of Global Power 1100 – 1800

In a systematic comparative format, John Hobson provides a wealth of
empirical indicators demonstrating China ’s global economic superiority
over the West and in particular England . These are some striking
facts:

As early as 1078, China was the world’s major producer of steel (125,000 tons); whereas Britain in 1788 produced 76,000 tons.

China was the world’s leader in technical innovations in textile
manufacturing, seven centuries before Britain ’s 18th century “textile
revolution”.

China was the leading trading nation, with long distance trade
reaching most of Southern Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Europe .
China’s ‘agricultural revolution’ and productivity surpassed the West
down to the 18th century.

Its innovations in the production of paper, book printing, firearms
and tools led to a manufacturing superpower whose goods were transported
throughout the world by the most advanced navigational system.

China possessed the world’s largest commercial ships. In 1588 the
largest English ships displaced 400 tons, China ’s 3,000 tons. Even as
late as the end of the 18th century China ’s merchants employed 130,000
private transport ships, several times that of Britain . China retained
this pre-eminent position in the world economy up until the early 19th
century.

British and Europeans manufacturers followed China ’s lead,
assimilating and borrowing its more advanced technology and were eager
to penetrate China ’s advanced and lucrative market.

Banking, a stable paper money economy, manufacturing and high yields
in agriculture resulted in China ’s per capita income matching that of
Great Britain as late as 1750.

China ’s dominant global position was challenged by the rise of
British imperialism, which had adopted the advanced technological,
navigational and market innovations of China and other Asian countries
in order to bypass earlier stages in becoming a world power[2].

Western Imperialism and the Decline of China

The British and Western imperial conquest of the East, was based on the
militaristic nature of the imperial state, its non-reciprocal economic
relations with overseas trading countries and the Western imperial
ideology which motivated and justified overseas conquest.

Unlike China , Britain ’s industrial revolution and overseas
expansion was driven by a military policy. According to Hobson, during
the period from 1688-1815 Great Britain was engaged in wars 52% of the
time[3]. Whereas the Chinese relied on their open markets and their
superior production and sophisticated commercial and banking skills, the
British relied on tariff protection, military conquest, the systematic
destruction of competitive overseas enterprises as well as the
appropriation and plunder of local resources. China ’s global
predominance was based on ‘reciprocal benefits’ with its trading
partners, while Britain relied on mercenary armies of occupation, savage
repression and a ‘divide and conquer’ policy to foment local
rivalries. In the face of native resistance, the British (as well as
other Western imperial powers) did not hesitate to exterminate entire
communities[4].

Unable to take over the Chinese market through greater economic
competitiveness, Britain relied on brute military power. It mobilized,
armed and led mercenaries, drawn from its colonies in India and
elsewhere to force its exports on China and impose unequal treaties to
lower tariffs. As a result China was flooded with British opium
produced on its plantations in India – despite Chinese laws forbidding
or regulating the importation and sale of the narcotic. China ’s
rulers, long accustomed to its trade and manufacturing superiority, were
unprepared for the ‘new imperial rules’ for global power. The West’s
willingness to use military power to win colonies, pillage resources
and recruit huge mercenary armies commanded by European officers spelt
the end for China as a world power.

China had based its economic predominance on ‘non-interference in the
internal affairs of its trading partners’. In contrast, British
imperialists intervened violently in Asia , reorganizing local economies
to suit the needs of the empire (eliminating economic competitors
including more efficient Indian cotton manufacturers) and seized control
of local political, economic and administrative apparatus to establish
the colonial state.

Britain ’s empire was built with resources seized from the colonies
and through the massive militarization of its economy[5]. It was thus
able to secure military supremacy over China . China ’s foreign policy
was hampered by its ruling elite’s excessive reliance on trade
relations. Chinese officials and merchant elites sought to appease the
British and convinced the emperor to grant devastating extra-territorial
concessions opening markets to the detriment of Chinese manufacturers
while surrendering local sovereignty. As always, the British
precipitated internal rivalries and revolts further destabilizing the
country.

Western and British penetration and colonization of China ’s market
created an entire new class: The wealthy Chinese ‘compradores’ imported
British goods and facilitated the takeover of local markets and
resources. Imperialist pillage forced greater exploitation and taxation
of the great mass of Chinese peasants and workers. China ’s rulers
were obliged to pay the war debts and finance trade deficits imposed by
the Western imperial powers by squeezing its peasantry. This drove the
peasants to starvation and revolt.

By the early 20th century (less than a century after the Opium Wars),
China had descended from world economic power to a broken semi-colonial
country with a huge destitute population. The principle ports were
controlled by Western imperial officials and the countryside was subject
to the rule by corrupt and brutal warlords. British opium enslaved
millions.

British Academics: Eloquent Apologists for Imperial Conquest

The entire Western academic profession – first and foremost British
imperial historians – attributed British imperial dominance of Asia to
English ‘technological superiority’ and China’s misery and colonial
status to ‘oriental backwardness’, omitting any mention of the
millennium of Chinese commercial and technical progress and superiority
up to the dawn of the 19th century. By the end of the 1920’s, with the
Japanese imperial invasion, China ceased to exist as a unified country.
Under the aegis of imperial rule, hundreds of millions of Chinese had
starved or were dispossessed or slaughtered, as the Western powers and
Japan plundered its economy. The entire Chinese ‘collaborator’
comprador elite were discredited before the Chinese people.

What did remain in the collective memory of the great mass of the
Chinese people – and what was totally absent in the accounts of
prestigious US and British academics – was the sense of China once
having been a prosperous, dynamic and leading world power. Western
commentators dismissed this collective memory of China ’s ascendancy as
the foolish pretensions of nostalgic lords and royalty – empty Han
arrogance.

Trump is an impotent over NK , China , his empty posturing is meaningless. China will return to its former glory as the no 1 global power, inevitable

The USA may not be posturing. . More guess work. The Allies may well be preparing for an inevitable showdown. It would be unlikely that forum TBV would be privy to what goes on behind the "green door" .

Wasn't China rescued from the Japanese By the USA in 1945 ?

C/P =Did the US save China? Yes, it did, in much the same way you “help” a man by no longer holding his head underwater.

Trump is an impotent over NK , China , his empty posturing is meaningless. China will return to its former glory as the no 1 global power, inevitable

The USA may not be posturing. . More guess work. The Allies may well be preparing for an inevitable showdown. It would be unlikely that forum TBV would be privy to what goes on behind the "green door" .

Wasn't China rescued from the Japanese By the USA in 1945 ?

C/P =Did the US save China? Yes, it did, in much the same way you “help” a man by no longer holding his head underwater.

The Chinese had been fighting the Japanese for 14 years when the war ended, they probably did the West a favour by keeping half the Japanese army tied down there, rather than fighting in the Pacific theatre.

is this ok here whale/dick or should i put in climate thread, or maybe super thread, so you go charging of to your stock broker! you might actually learn something instead of being abusive.

Big guns set export records

The West Australian

2 Jan 2018

Stuart McKinnon

A record 80 million tonnes of iron ore was shipped from Pilbara ports in December, as Rio Tinto and BHP ramped up output to take advantage of the healthy premium paid for their high-grade product in China.

The figure eclipsed the previous record of 73Mt set in September and included a 24-hour record of 2.18Mt shipped from Port Hedland on December 14.

BHP shipped 25.7Mt from Port Hedland last month, up from 23.4Mt in November while Rio exported 33.5Mt from Dampier and Cape Lambert in December, up from 28Mt the previous month.

The figures, from an industry source, came as Bloomberg Intelligence predicted the global iron ore market would be oversupplied this year on slower China demand while mines elsewhere lifted output.

“Iron ore sitting at China ports is at a record high, as traders and steel mills slow raw materials purchase and cut inventory,” the analyst said in a note on Friday.

“Strict supply-side reforms and an environmental protection push in China, the producer of 50 per cent of the world’s steel, will limit additional output from domestic steel mills.”

Goldman Sachs said last month iron ore prices above $US70/t were not sustainable in the new year. The investment bank predicted prices for the raw material would drop to $US60/t in three months and average $US55/t over 2018.

The spot iron ore price was $US72.42 on Friday.

The Goldman Sachs forecast followed comments from Rio chief Jean-Sebastien Jacques last month that the Chinese economy could slow over the next six months, particularly in the construction, infrastructure and automotive sectors.

The iron ore market in 2017 was characterised by a widening divide in prices between high and low grade material driven by the Chinese government’s domestic policies.

Last year the government moved to cut overcapacity in the steel industry and curb air pollution by shuttering dirty, inefficient mills.

The drive to clean up the industry has seen remaining mills lift capacity to meet the shortfall and move towards higher grade ore, which produces more steel with less energy and emissions.

Compounding the trend, higher steel prices in China have delivered higher operating margins for mills, allowing them to afford the higher premiums.

Not sure what Isaac's point here, should the Chinese be "grateful" we sell iron ore to them ? I'd have thought it a commercial transaction, pure and simple. But I wonder how much ore we will have left to sell, at the staggering amounts quoted.

Mechatronics challenge India's government as a million people look for work each month

"This is the robotic hand, which is actually controlled by me through these sensors, they're called flex sensors," mechatronics student Subhankar Singh explains proudly.

Key points:

India's government believes students could innovate if they were taught more practical skills

A million people in India are looking for work each month

Automation is eating into factory jobs

'Mechatronics' is a combination of mechanical and electronic engineering, and Mr Singh, together with classmate Narendra Kandori, are tinkering with a robotic hand, controlled by sensors wired into a glove so it moves as they flex their fingers.

"This can be used in the future for bionic arms, so in the medical industry, or the entertainment industry," he said.

"Even for industrial automation."

These students are the future hope for an economy that India's government is desperate to steer away from bureaucracy, and into the innovation business.

"I see 800 million entrepreneurs, who can work towards making the world a better place," India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi said last month, referring to the staggering number of Indians 35 or under.

He has been exhorting foreign companies to "make in India" and encouraging Indian entrepreneurs to start businesses at home instead of travelling abroad to make their fortunes.

The stakes for India are high.Around 2022, the country is set to eclipse China as the world's most populous nation.

Government figures suggest a million people a month join the workforce.

They should be what's called a "demographic dividend" — a boost to the country's productive capacity.

But while India has ample labour supply, demand is another question.

Frederico Gil-Sander, an economist with the World Bank, says unless there are businesses willing to employ them, the young people who should power India's future could instead weigh on the economy.

"They (unemployed people) place a huge burden on the state — it has to spend huge resources on redistribution," Mr Gil-Sander said.

The prospect of this is real, because India's workers face two critical problems.

Manufacturing jobs are drying up, and this country lacks the means to skill them otherwise.

One World Bank study warned two-thirds of the jobs in India today were already under threat from automation.

"Automation in manufacturing in particular and even services, it's a force, it's a wave to be ridden, not something to be fought," Mr Gil-Sander said.

Implementation eyed for early 2019

Japan and the European Union have concluded negotiations on a giant free trade deal that they said was reached while “fighting the temptation of protectionism” — a message apparently directed at U.S. President Donald Trump.

The deal, which the EU called its biggest ever, must be signed and ratified by both sides. The broad outlines of the deal were agreed to in July. Once completed, it will forge an economic zone of 600 million people worth 30 percent of global GDP.

After the announcement was made late Friday, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe hailed the imminent birth of what he called a “gigantic economic zone” as he confirmed that the negotiations had been concluded.

“Japan and the EU will join hands and build an economic zone based on free and fair rules,” Abe told reporters in Tokyo Friday.

Abe and European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker said earlier that the agreement, which was four years in the making, had “strategic importance” beyond its economic value.

“It sends a clear signal to the world that the EU and Japan are committed to keeping the world economy working on the basis of free, open and fair markets with clear and transparent rules fully respecting and enhancing our values, fighting the temptation of protectionism,” the pair said in a statement released in Brussels.

Through the deal, the EU hopes to get better access to one of the world’s richest markets, while Japan hopes to jump-start an economy that has struggled to find solid growth for more than a decade.

Japan is also hoping to seize an opportunity to offset the failure of the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership, a massive free trade deal that was torpedoed by Trump in January.

The deal will open up the EU market to Japanese cars and auto parts and the Japanese market to European dairy and agricultural products.

Japan will eliminate tariffs on 94 percent of all imports from the bloc, including 82 percent on farm and fishery products. The reduction will likely result in lower prices for European cheese, pork and wine in Japan — although domestic farmers are wary of being flooded by competitive products.

In return, the EU will abolish tariffs on 99 percent of imports from Japan. The EU will eliminate tariffs on Japanese autos in the eighth year after the pact is implemented and abolish taxes on sake and green tea. Japan’s exports will likely get a boost in a market comprising over 500 million people.

The two sides were aiming to finalize the specifics in the hope of signing the deal next summer and putting it into effect in 2019, negotiation sources said.

EU officials insist the deal will be a major boon to European farmers who would gain access to a huge market that appreciates European products.

Hailing the opportunity at a news conference, EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstroem said, “This is actually the biggest trade deal we have ever negotiated from the European Union”.

The BusinessEurope lobby hailed the agreement as “very good news” for both companies and citizens on both sides and predicted it will lead to “global standards” in new business areas.

“The agreement should remove long standing tariff and nontariff barriers to trade,” BusinessEurope’s director-general Markus Beyrer said in a statement. “It should generate new business opportunities and closer economic ties between two like-minded economies and is of high strategic importance.”

But anti-trade activists who say such deals favor multinational firms at the expense of democracy and the environment might influence events when the deal comes up for ratification in the bloc’s more than 30 regional and national parliaments.

Last year, the EU’s CETA trade deal with Canada nearly sank on such concerns when the small Belgian region of Wallonia threatened to veto it, before eventually relenting.

In reaching the deal, the sides have decided not to include a system to settle investment disputes and will continue negotiations over the issue, a senior Japanese official said.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum